Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 04/03/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claim 1, 8 and 15 are amended and claims 5, 12 and 19 are cancelled. The previous 103 is modified in view of amendment made and an explanation is given below. See office action for detail.
Applicant 103 arguments
Applicant argues the newly added limitation "wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device," and "wherein the one or more differences include differences in specifications between the parts of the robotic device in the second set and the parts of the first robotic device," as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is not taught by the combination of McGregor in view of Chen, further in view of Peck, further in view of Berenstein.
Examiner response
In view of applicant amendment, Examiner withdraw the Peck reference and added the new reference Bareddy that explicitly teaches “wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device”. (See fig 1).
Regarding the newly added limitation “wherein the one or more differences include differences in specifications between the parts of the robotic device in the second set and the parts of the first robotic device”, Chen teaches this limitation. See office action for detail.
Applicant arguments
Applicant submits that McGregor in view of Chen, further in view of Peck, further in view of Berenstein is an improper combination of references.
Examiner response
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each cited previous references (McGregor, Chen, Bernstein) concerns robotic systems, robotic simulation, robotic resource/tool attachment or coordinated multi-machine environments. Therefore, the references are resonantly pertinent to the problem addressed by applicant: modifying using additional resources and validating operation. McGregor teaches robotic simulation, multiple robots, and validating robotic operations in a shared environment. Chen teaches robotic fleet coordination and robots assisting/managing other robots. Bernstein teaches autonomous attachment/detachment of 3D-printed tools/accessories to robots. Because all reference address automation and robotic functionality, they are properly combinable. Combining these references will reduce human intervention, faster reconfiguration of robots and validated robot modification through simulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of McGregor et al. (PUB NO: US20210138651A1) in view of Chen et al. (PUB NO: US20220269284A1) and further in view of Berenstein et al. ("An open-access passive modular tool changing system for mobile manipulation robots." 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2018.) and still in further in view of Bareddy (PAT NO: US10913146B1)
Regarding claim 1
McGregor teaches a computer-based method (see para 33-This can include bringing multiple virtual machines that were configured in separate vendor-specific platforms into the same virtual testing and simulation environment in order to assess how the aggregate system will operate. In the case of digital models that were developed in other vendor-specific design and simulation platforms. See para 40- Control design and testing system 202 comprises a simulation component 206 that simulates operation of a virtualized model of an industrial automation system under control of an industrial control program. In general, the simulation platform executed by system 202 can test the control programming and mechanical design of the automation system by emulating execution of the control program against the virtual model of the automation system, a process referred to as virtual commissioning.)
executing a digital twin simulation of a digital twin model of the first robotic device performing the activity; (see para 29-33- To test the program, the system 102 can execute a robot simulation 104 in which operation of the robot under control of the robot control program 106 is digitally mimicked using a three-dimensional (3D) virtual model of the robot 108. the control design and testing system can apply physics modeling to accurately simulate the industrial context within which the robot will operate. Embodiments of the design and testing system can also allow vendor-specific digital twins of robots or other machines to be brought into the same simulation space so that coordinated operation of the multiple machines can be accurately assessed)
determining whether the first robotic device is able to complete each step of the activity without incident based on the digital twin simulation; (see para 29-32-Based on observation of the simulation outputs 110, the designer may modify the robot control program 106 to bring the simulated operation into closer alignment with desired operation and perform subsequent simulations until the expected robot operation is deemed acceptable. By leveraging this physics modeling during the simulation, the testing system can predict instances in which the robot may have failed to pick up a part due to non-optimal robot movement or gripping relative to the movement, shape, and/or position of an incoming part. See para 60-simulation component 206 can predict expected behaviors of the modeled industrial components—as well as behaviors of products being manufactured, processed, or handled by the components—in response to the controller output data 602, and convey this predicted behavior as system response data 618. Example behaviors represented by system response data 618 can include, but are not limited to, movements and trajectories of the industrial robots (based on execution of the robot programs 304), movement of product through the simulated automation system (including speeds, accelerations, locations, lags, collisions, gripper failures, etc)
McGregor does not teach a computer implemented method of self-developing resources, receiving real-time data relating to an activity and a first robotic device assigned to perform the activity; creating an AI knowledge corpus of a second set of one or more robotic devices capable of performing the activity based on historical data relating to the activity; in response to determining the first robotic device is not able to complete each step of the activity without incident, identifying within the second set of one or more robotic devices a most comparable robotic device to the first robotic device, wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device; predicting a modification of the first robotic device based on one or more differences between the most comparable robotic device and the first robotic device, wherein the one or more differences include differences in specifications between the parts of the robotic device in the second set and the parts of the first robotic device; and attaching one or more resources printed by a 3D printer to the first robotic device in the multi-machine environment based on the predicted modification.
In the related field of invention, Chen teaches a self-developing resource; (see para 153- one or more tools or sensors attached to the robot, removal or replacement of one or more tools or sensors attached to the robot. para 174- Examples of robots 110A, 110B, and 110C may include robots that are fully autonomous, pre-programmed for specific tasks, motions, routes, or activities, or under direct human control. Robots 110A, 110B, and 110C may be stationary or mobile, and mobile robots may include wheeled, tracked, bi-ped, quadraped, or multi-ped, or other means of propulsion. Robots 110A, 110B, and 110C may be provided with tools, sensors, or other hardware for the completion of missions and tasks, such as articulated arms, grips, claws, wrenches, drivers, hammers, pry bars, cameras, microphones, chemical detectors, noise sensors, vibration sensors, etc.)
receiving real-time data relating to an activity and a first robotic device assigned to perform the activity; (see para 006-The mission manager is configured to select the first robot, from among the plurality of robots, to perform a selected robot mission among a plurality of robot missions based on capabilities of the first robot and features of the selected robot mission, transmit first robot mission control information to the first robot via the first control adapter, the first control adapter having transformed the first common robot mission control information to the transmitted first robot mission control information, and receive, from the first data adapter, mission feedback transformed by the first data adapter from data obtained by the first robot. See para 100-A processor of the first robot may continue to receive data while performing the task)
creating an AI knowledge corpus of a second set of one or more robotic devices capable of performing the activity based on historical data relating to the activity; (see para 007-The mission manager may be further configured to select the second robot, from among the plurality of robots, to perform the selected robot mission based on capabilities of the second robot and features of the selected robot mission. see para 31-Data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback may be performed using machine learning or artificial intelligence analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions. See para 40-41- receiving mission feedback for the selected robot mission from the selected robot, storing the received mission feedback to a database. Storing the received mission feedback to the database may include one or more of providing the received mission feedback to a machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (Al) module for further analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions….. or storing a record of the mission and the received mission feedback to a mission log.)
in response to determining the first robotic device is not able to complete each step of the activity without incident, identifying within the second set of one or more robotic devices a most comparable robotic device to the first robotic device; (see para 0007-The mission manager may be further configured to select the second robot, from among the plurality of robots, to perform the selected robot mission based on capabilities of the second robot and features of the selected robot mission. See para 97-The method may further include if the first robot is incapable of performing the task based on the second mission profile, determining, by a processor of the system configured to manage the fleet of robots, if a second robot of the one or more robots is capable of performing the task based on the second mission profile, and assigning, by the processor of the system, the task based on the second mission profile to the second robot based on the capabilities of the second robot. see para 174- Robots 110A, 110B, and 110C may be provided with tools, sensors, or other hardware for the completion of missions and tasks, such as articulated arms, grips, claws, wrenches, drivers, hammers, pry bars, cameras, microphones, chemical detectors, noise sensors, vibration sensors, etc.)
differences between the most comparable robotic device and the first robotic device, wherein the one or more differences include differences in specifications between the parts of the robotic device in the second set and the parts of the first robotic device; (see para 174- Robots 110A, 110B, and 110C may be provided with tools, sensors, or other hardware for the completion of missions and tasks, such as articulated arms, grips, claws, wrenches, drivers, hammers, pry bars, cameras, microphones, chemical detectors, noise sensors, vibration sensors, etc. See para 217-220-Robot capabilities may also include tools associated with the robot. For example, a robot may have a grasping mechanism that may operate in a manner similar to a human hand for turning a lever or the like. Alternatively, or additionally, the robot capability may include the ability of the robot to acquire and/or to use a tool. For example, a wrench may be available for use by a robot. However, if the robot does not include a grasping mechanism or similar mechanism for holding and operating the wrench, then the wrench may not be a robot capability associated with that specific robot. For example, a robot may be assigned multiple missions, or the robot may be unavailable at a specific time for maintenance or repair, due to low battery, or other conflicts. Similarly, robot capabilities may include an amount of battery remaining and may indicate how long the robot can be used before it must recharge. The robot capability information may further include specifications of tools available to the robot, such as a size or torque capacity of a wrench. For example, the mission may require a first robot having a camera and a second robot having rotors and capable of lifting the first robot to the sensor fifty feet off the ground. See also fig 15)
predicting a modification of the first robotic device based on one or more differences between the most comparable robotic device and the first robotic device; (see para 153-154- For example, in addition to the temporary changes in robot capabilities discussed above, a particular robot may be subject to permanent changes in capabilities and availability, such as the removal or installation of sensors or tools, or the relocation of the robot another area of a facility such that the robot is available to perform missions or tasks in a different limited portion of the facility. Modifications to a robot may change other capabilities of the robot, such as, for example, changes to the total weight of the robot may cause changes to battery life, movement speed, or maximum distance for the robot to travel. Such changes may be reflected in updated robot definition information. See also para 174 and 217-220)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include receiving real-time data relating to an activity and a first robotic device assigned to perform the activity; creating an AI knowledge corpus of a second set of one or more robotic devices capable of performing the activity based on historical data relating to the activity; in response to determining the first robotic device is not able to complete each step of the activity without incident, identifying within the second set of one or more robotic devices a most comparable robotic device to the first robotic device; differences between the most comparable robotic device and the first robotic device, wherein the one or more differences include differences in specifications between the parts of the robotic device in the second set and the parts of the first robotic device predicting a modification of the first robotic device based on one or more differences between the most comparable robotic device and the first robotic device as taught by Chen in the system of McGregor for defining missions based on factors associated with the missions or environmental data associated with the system, assigning the missions to the fleet of robots based on capabilities of the robots, generating a schedule of the missions and the robots, and managing the fleet of robots using feedback. (see Abstract, Chen)
The combination of McGregor and Chen does not teach wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device; and attaching one or more resources printed by a 3D printer to the first robotic device in the multi-machine environment based on the predicted modification.
In the related field of invention, Berenstein teaches attaching one or more resources printed by a 3D printer to the first robotic device in the multi-machine environment based on the predicted modification. (See abstract- The tool changer is compatible with many robots and was evaluated with the Fetch robot for 100 repetitions of connecting and releasing the tool, of which 92 were successful. See section Introduction-In this work, we manually specified the desired spatial positions and carefully reset the robot’s initial position in order to connect with the tools. The tool changer is mostly 3D-printed which contributes to the potential adoption of the concept in other robotic labs and industry. 3D-printing also keeps the tool changer light-weight due to the use plastic (PLA). The constraints that guided us through the design process were for the tool changer to be low-cost, backlash free, compact, light-weight, passive, and modular. The robot will pick up the tool it needs, perform the task, and return the tool to its housing. The design we suggest uses male/female truncated cone (Figure 1, 2) to connect the tools to the robot. See section II- we propose a passive device, actuated purely mechanically that can be coupled with mobile manipulator robots without any additional electronic components. The majority of our tool changer pieces can be made using any standard 3D printer. The benefit of a passive mechanism is its robustness, simplicity to manufacture, maintain and repair, and simplicity of operation. he robot adapter shown in Figure 4 was designed specifically for the Fetch robot. However, the robot adapter can be modified for attachment to any desired robot. See section III- The tool changer designed in this work is assembled from three main components: robot component (Section IIIB, Figure 2b), tool component (Section III-A, Figure 2a), and the tool housing (Section III-C, Figure 2c). The design objective of the tool changer focused on providing a low-cost passive mechanism that enables work within strict financial constraints. To that end, the design minimizes the need of custom machined components and instead mainly utilizes additively manufactured components from affordable 3D printers manufactured using PLA. The dowel pins and washers are custom machined aluminum pieces; the springs and the bearings are standard off-the-shelf components. The rest of the assembly is 3D-printed. See fig 4- The robot component is mounted to the robotic arm and is designed to connect to the tool component, cone and locking blades)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include attaching one or more resources printed by a 3D printer to the first robotic device in the multi-machine environment based on the predicted modification as taught by Berenstein in the system of McGregor and Chen in order to evaluate the tool changer mechanics while using a commercial mobile manipulator robot. Another motivation is to propose a passive device, actuated purely mechanically that can be coupled with mobile manipulator robots without any additional electronic components. The majority of the tool changer pieces can be made using any standard 3D printer. The benefit of a passive mechanism is its robustness, simplicity to manufacture, maintain and repair, and simplicity of operation. (see Abstract, Berenstein)
The combination of McGregor, Chen and Berenstein does not teach wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device.
In the related field of invention, Bareddy teaches wherein the most comparable robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices is identified based on a robotic device in the second set of the one or more robotic devices that has a greatest number of parts in common with parts of the first robotic device;(See fig 1 and col 5 line 36-47-FIG. 1 illustrates an example environment in which disclosed techniques may be implemented. Three telepresence robots 130A, 130B, and 130C are illustrated in the example environment of FIG. 1. Each of the telepresence robots 130A-C includes a corresponding base 133A-C with wheels provided on opposed sides thereof for locomotion of a corresponding of the telepresence robots 130A-C. Each of the telepresence robots 130A-C further includes a corresponding display screen 132A-C. see fig 1 and col 6-Each of the telepresence robots 130A-C further includes a corresponding camera 131A-C. The telepresence robot 130B also includes a robot arm 134B with an end effector 135B. Telepresence robot 130C also includes the receptacles 136C and 137C (whereas telepresence robot 130A and 130B do not)
Examiner note: Robot 130B is considered most comparable to robot 130A and 130C since it shares many parts while differing by one added subsystem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include attaching one or more resources printed by a 3D printer to the first robotic device in the multi-machine environment based on the predicted modification as taught by Bareddy in the system of McGregor, Chen and Berenstein in order to replace the first robot in performing the task by directing the telepresence robot to navigate to a location proximal to the first robot and transitioning the first telepresence robot's session to the second telepresence robot. This will help to alleviate the impact of robot replacement to individuals in the environment with the robot and/or individuals that are controlling the robot and/or consuming data provided by the robot. (see Abstract, Bareddy)
Regarding claim 8
McGregor teaches a computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories, (see fig 2 and para 96)wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
The rest of claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 15
McGregor teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, (see fig 2 and para 96) the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising:
The rest of claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 2
Brennan in view of Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy as shown in the rejection above, discloses the
limitations of claim 1. McGregor further teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: executing an updated digital twin simulation of a modified version of the first robotic device having the one or more resources performing the activity to validate the prediction. (see para 003-In one or more embodiments, a system for simulating automation systems is provided, comprising a simulation component configured to execute of a simulation of an industrial automation system based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the industrial automation system, the three-dimensional virtual model including a virtual robot model representing an industrial robot…. to simulate operation of the industrial robot under control of the robot program based on execution of the robot program facilitated by exchange of the data with the vendor-specific simulation platform. see para 29-33-Based on observation of the simulation outputs 110, the designer may modify the robot control program 106 to bring the simulated operation into closer alignment with desired operation and perform subsequent simulations until the expected robot operation is deemed acceptable. This allows the actual vendor-specific robot algorithms that will be executed on the physical robots to be executed on the simulation platform)
Regarding claim 9 and 16
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 3
Brennan in view of Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McGregor further teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein executing the updated digital twin simulation further comprises: iterating the execution of the updated digital twin simulation with a different resource in response to determining the modified version of the first robotic device is not able to complete each step of the activity without incident. (see para 003-In one or more embodiments, a system for simulating automation systems is provided, comprising a simulation component configured to execute of a simulation of an industrial automation system based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the industrial automation system, the three-dimensional virtual model including a virtual robot model representing an industrial robot…. to simulate operation of the industrial robot under control of the robot program based on execution of the robot program facilitated by exchange of the data with the vendor-specific simulation platform. see para 29-32-Based on observation of the simulation outputs 110, the designer may modify the robot control program 106 to bring the simulated operation into closer alignment with desired operation and perform subsequent simulations until the expected robot operation is deemed acceptable. By leveraging this physics modeling during the simulation, the testing system can predict instances in which the robot may have failed to pick up a part due to non-optimal robot movement or gripping relative to the movement, shape, and/or position of an incoming part. See para 36-Based on observation of the simulation outputs 110, the designer may modify the robot control program 106 to bring the simulated operation into closer alignment with desired operation and perform subsequent simulations until the expected robot operation is deemed acceptable. see para 69- grippers (e.g., suction grippers, mechanical grippers, etc.))
Regarding claim 10 and 17
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 6
Brennan in view of Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McGregor further teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, at least one other robot in the multi-machine environment. (See para 33- Embodiments of the design and testing system can also allow vendor-specific digital twins of robots or other machines to be brought into the same simulation space so that coordinated operation of the multiple machines can be accurately assessed. See para 65-FIG. 8 is another still image of an example visualization 614 that can be rendered by user interface component 204. In this example, the automation system comprises two industrial robots 802 a and 802 b. see para 52- multiple robots that were configured and programed on respective different vendor-specific platforms 406 can be brought into a common simulation environment to verify operation of the aggregate automation system comprising the multiple robots and the other industrial assets making up the automation system.)
McGregor does not teach wherein the one or more resources printed by the 3D printer are one or more additional accessories that are attached to the first robotic device by at least one other robot in the multi-machine environment.
However, Bernstein further teaches wherein the one or more resources printed by the 3D printer are one or more additional accessories that are attached to the first robotic device by at least one other robot in the multi-machine environment. (See abstract- Mobile manipulator robots can benefit from utilizing a range of tools such as: screwdrivers, paintbrushes, hammers, drills, and sensors such thermal cameras. See Introduction- The robot may need access to a variety of tools, both passive (e.g., brush, hammer) and actuated (e.g., drill). The robot will pick up the tool it needs, perform the task, and return the tool to its housing. The design we suggest uses male/female truncated cone (Figure 1, 2) to connect the tools to the robot. The tool changer is mostly 3D-printed. However, the robot adapter can be modified for attachment to any desired robot. See section III- The rest of the assembly is 3D-printed. See fig 4- The robot component is mounted to the robotic arm and is designed to connect to the tool component, cone and locking blades)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include wherein the one or more resources printed by the 3D printer are one or more additional accessories that are attached to the first robotic device by at least one other robot in the multi-machine environment as taught by Berenstein in the system of McGregor, Chen and Bareddy in order to evaluate the tool changer mechanics while using a commercial mobile manipulator robot. Another motivation is to propose a passive device, actuated purely mechanically that can be coupled with mobile manipulator robots without any additional electronic components. The majority of the tool changer pieces can be made using any standard 3D printer. The benefit of a passive mechanism is its robustness, simplicity to manufacture, maintain and repair, and simplicity of operation. (see Abstract, Berenstein)
Regarding claim 13 and 20
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6, as they share the same elements.
Regarding claim 7
Brennan in view of Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McGregor further teaches the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the resource . (see para 69-70- grippers (e.g., suction grippers, mechanical grippers, etc.) The catalog of aspect definitions 222 can also include various types of robotic end effectors. See para 77- These characteristics can include, but are not limited to, gear diameters, gear ratios, coefficients of friction, inertias, motion constraints (e.g., known axes of motion of a particular type of robot and their corresponding motion constraints))
McGregor does not teach wherein the resource attached to the first robotic device.
However, Berenstein further teaches wherein the resource attached to the first robotic device. (See section Introduction- The robot will pick up the tool it needs, perform the task, and return the tool to its housing. The design we suggest uses male/female truncated cone (Figure 1, 2) to connect the tools to the robot. See fig 4- The robot component is mounted to the robotic arm and is designed to connect to the tool component, cone and locking blades)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include wherein the resource attached to the first robotic device as taught by Berenstein in the system of McGregor, Chen and Bareddy in order to evaluate the tool changer mechanics while using a commercial mobile manipulator robot. Another motivation is to propose a passive device, actuated purely mechanically that can be coupled with mobile manipulator robots without any additional electronic components. The majority of the tool changer pieces can be made using any standard 3D printer. The benefit of a passive mechanism is its robustness, simplicity to manufacture, maintain and repair, and simplicity of operation. (see Abstract, Berenstein)
6. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of McGregor et al. (PUB NO: US20210138651A1) in view of Chen et al. (PUB NO: US20220269284A1) and further in view of Berenstein et al. ("An open-access passive modular tool changing system for mobile manipulation robots." 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2018.) and still in further in view of Bareddy (PAT NO: US10913146B1) and still further in view of Czinger et al. (PUB NO: US20180339456A1)
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18
Brennan in view of Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. McGregor further teaches the computer-based method of claim 1. The combination of McGregor, Chen, Bareddy and Berenstein does not teach wherein the 3D printer is embedded in the first robotic device.
In the related field of invention, Czinger teaches wherein the 3D printer is embedded in the first robotic device. (See para 47-Moreover, 3-D printers can be supported on a robotic device and in some exemplary embodiments, the robotic device can move to different assembly stations as needed to 3-D print different parts or components on a dynamic, substantially real-time basis. The printed parts may be further manipulated or moved by the supporting robotic device or by one of any number of automated constructors. For example, a robot may take a 3-D printed part at an assembly station and place the part into the transport structure or insert the printed part on another component for assembly and integration with the component.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of digital twin of multi-machine simulation as disclosed by McGregor to include wherein the 3D printer is embedded in the first robotic device as taught by Czinger in the system of McGregor, Chen, Berenstein and Bareddy in order to use a three-dimensional (3-D) printer to print at least a portion of a component and transfer the component to a second one of the automated constructors/robots for installation during the assembly of the transport structure. (see Abstract, Czinger)
Regarding claim 11 and 18
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4, as they share the same elements.
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alves US20190240912A1.
Discussing a mobile 3D printing robot system that has at least one 3D printing device having at least one printhead which is movable by the robot arm. The 3D printing device is provided for dispensing at least one printing material. An electronic control unit of the mobile 3D printing robot is provided at least for actuating the 3D printing device.
Liu, Chao, Michael Whitzer, and Mark Yim. "A distributed reconfiguration planning algorithm for modular robots." IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4.4 (2019): 4231-4238.
Discussing a novel reconfiguration planning algorithm for modular robots. The algorithm compares the initial configuration with the goal configuration efficiently. The reconfiguration actions can be executed in a distributed manner so that each module can efficiently finish its reconfiguration task which results in a global reconfiguration for the system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights